Maldistribution, trays vapor

Vapor maldistribution. Most popular theoretical models (such as the AIChE and the Chan and Fair models, Sec. 7.2.1) postulate perfectly mixed vapor flow. In larga-diameter columns, vapor is more likely to rise in plug flow. Modeling work showed (143,179,180) that in the absence of stagnant zones on the tray, vapor flow pattern has generally little effect on tray efficiency. When column efficiency exceeds 30 percent (143), or when stagnant liquid zones exist (171,173,180), vapor plug flow reduces tray efficiency. 

Large liquid head gradients reduce tray capacity and may damage separation by causing maldistribution of vapor flow across the tray. In fact, an extremely large head gradient can cause some caps to dump the liquid to the tray below. 

An issue that is not adequately addressed by most models (EQ and NEQ) is that of vapor and liquid flow patterns on distillation trays or maldistribution in packed columns. Since reaction rates and chemical equilibrium constants are dependent on the local concentrations and temperature, they may vary along the flow path of liquid on a tray, or from side to side of a packed column. For such systems the residence time distribution could be very important, as well as a proper description of mass transfer. On distillation trays, vapor will rise more or less in plug flow through a layer of froth. The liquid will flow along the tray more or less in plug flow, with some axial dispersion caused by the vapor jets and bubbles. In packed sections, maldistribution of internal vapor and liquid flows over the cross-sectional area of the column can lead to loss of interfacial area. 

The above results are based on data obtained for optimized designs and under ideal test conditions. To translate our findings to the real world, one must factor in liquid and vapor maldistribution, which is far more detrimental to the efficiency of packings than trays. In addition. one also must account for poor optimization or restrictive internals, which are far more detrimental to the capacity of trays than packings. We also have cited several other factors that need to be considered when translating the findings of our analysis to real-world towers. ... 

Most popular theoretical models (such as the AlChE and the Chan and Fair models, Sec. 7.2.1) postulate that liquid crosses the tray in plug flow (Fig. 7.7a) with superimposed backmixing, and that vapor is perfectly mixed. Increasing tray diameter promotes liquid plug flow and suppresses backmixing. This should enhance efficiency in large-diameter columns, but such enhancement has not been observed (147,148). Liquid maldistribution is the common explanation to the observation. 

Under some conditions, vapor velocity maldistribution induced by hydraulic gradient nr tray tilt cam lead to excessive nonuniform weeping (183a Also, see Secs. 6.2.12, 6.2.13). Such excessive weeping can be detrimental to tray efficiency. 

If the feed zone is intended to be a centrifuge, the swirl should not impinge on the catch tray, because the Bernoulli effect at high vapor velocity can reverse flow through a chimney, thus causing maldistribution in the de-entrainment zone. 

The main consideration for introducing reflux or intermediate feed into a packed tower is adequately distributing the incoming stream to the packing. Unlike most tray columns, packed towers are sensitive to distribution. Maldistribution is detrimental to packing efficiency and turndown. The main devices that set the quality of distribution in a packed column are the top (or reflux) distributor, the intermediate feed distributor, the redistributor, and sometimes the vapor distributor. Adequate hydraulics in the inlet area is also important failure to achieve this can affect distributor performance and can also cause premature flooding. 

The author experienced one troublesome case, which was also reported by Lieberman (237), where liquid overflow through the chimneys caused a severe loss of efficiency in the packed section above. The chimney tray had undersized downpipes that were not liquid-sealed either the undersizing or the lack of seal (or both) could have caused the overflow. Lieberman (237) suggests that the overflow led to entrainment and flooding, hence the loss in efficiency. However, subsequent pressure-drop measurements and other observations provided no supporting evidence for the existence of flooding, and the author believes that vapor maldistribution due to liquid overflow (guideline 14 above) caused the loss in efficiency. 

I-beam interference can be just as troublesome in the space above a chimney tray. In one case history contributed by D. W. Reay (334), this interference is believed to have led to severe vapor maldistribution in a refinery vacuum tower (Fig. 8.66). The maldistributed vapor profile was displayed as a carbon deposit on the siuTace of the bottom packing. The deposit formed an annular ring about 5 ft wide that extended about 1 in into the bed. In that case, liquid was known to overflow the chimneys for several months because of an incorrect location of level tappings. This overflow caused liquid entrainment. Some entrained droplets ultimately carbonized on the base of the bed. Had the vapor profile been uniform, entrainment (and therefore deposit laydown) would have been more uniform. It is believed that vapor from the side chimneys was blocked by the beams and preferentially ascended around the periphery. If liquid overflow (down the risers) had been uneven, the maldistribution could have been further aggravated. 

Following replacement of trays with structured packing, the product failed to meet specs and tamdown was poor. Glycol rate had to be doubled to achieve dehydration. The most likely cause was gas maldistribution induced by an inlet vapor velocity head of 56 in of water. The column achieved design performance after new structured packing as well as new vapor and liquid distributors were installed. 

Disk and donut tr just above the feed and trays below the HCX) draw were replaced by grid Erratic temperatures and poor heat transfer resulted caused by vapor maldistribution. A V-shaped wedge baffle was installed directly at the vapor inlet, but did not help. Baffle and giM ctdced aH r 10 months operation, causing a ct >aci1ybottlmleck. 

In practice, the most common reason why vapor flow is maldistributed as it escapes from a well-designed chimney tray is distortion of the hats. I believe this is due mostly to workers stepping on the hats during unit turnarounds. The hat support brackets are designed to support a 20-lb hat, not a 200-lb welder. 

---